نقش فشارهای سازمانی و فرهنگ سازمانی در قصد شرکت به اتخاذ سیستم های مدیریت زنجیره تامین فعال شده با اینترنت

Drawing upon organizational culture and institutional theory, this study investigates how institutional pressures motivate the firm to adopt Internet-enabled Supply Chain Management systems (eSCM) and how such effects are moderated by organizational culture. The results of a survey of 131 firms suggest that the dimensions of institutional pressures (i.e., normative, mimetic, and coercive pressures) have differential effects on eSCM adoption intention. While mimetic pressures are not related to eSCM adoption intention, normative and coercive pressures are positively associated with eSCM adoption intention. In addition, organizational culture (i.e., flexibility orientation and control orientation) plays different roles in the relationships between these three dimensions of institutional pressures and eSCM adoption intention. While flexibility orientation negatively moderates the effects of coercive pressures and positively moderates the effects of mimetic pressures, control orientation positively moderates the effects of coercive and normative pressures and negatively moderates the effects of mimetic pressures. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

The diffusion of Internet-enabled systems allows firms to streamline and integrate the supply chain with a more applied and easier to implement format (Boyer and Hult, 2005, Boyer and Olson, 2002 and Olson and Boyer, 2003). Research suggests that such diffusion enables the widest possible arc of supply chain integration, transforming an ideal practice into an operational reality (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001). Specifically, Internet-enabled systems, such as Internet-enabled Supply Chain Management systems (eSCM), offer firms platforms to enhance communication, coordination, and collaboration across organizational boundaries at operational, tactical, and strategic levels. These Internet-enabled systems resolve the tradeoffs between low cost, rich content, real-time data, and broad channel deployment for traditional methods, such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) (Frohlich, 2002, Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001, Rai et al., 2006 and Subramani, 2004). As such, the adoption of Internet-enabled systems is regarded as an essential element of supply chain operational strategy in the current market (Boyer and Hult, 2005, Frohlich, 2002 and Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001). However, many firms are still struggling with the development of Internet-enabled systems (Olson and Boyer, 2003). The high uncertainties related to network effects and interdependence are of great concern and impede firms from adopting these systems (Teo et al., 2003 and Zhu et al., 2006). Low rates of eSCM adoption across a firm's supply chain may cause critical failure of the supply chain and erode the competitive position of the firm (Ke et al., 2009, Teo et al., 2003 and Zhang et al., 2009). Therefore, research on the antecedents of eSCM adoption is of great significance and interest. In prior research, scholars have applied Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) (e.g., Mukherjee et al., 2000 and Young-Ybarra and Wiersma, 1999) to identify the drivers for a firm's adoption of innovations. Gulati (1995) comments that such analysis focuses primarily on the firm's existing competencies and static efficiency, but neglects the uncertainties involved in innovation adoption. In addition, TCE is criticized for being “under socialized” as it ignores the effects of the environment (Granovetter, 1985). The fact is that, when firms are seeking efficiency, they are under institutional constraints including various social expectations and norms that may be in conflict with efficiency (Roberts and Greenwood, 1997). Hence, researchers should go beyond TCE to extend the current understanding of innovation adoption. Scholars increasingly tout institutional theory as an important perspective for studies on inter-organizational innovation adoption (e.g., Heugens and Lander, 2009, Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004, Rogers et al., 2007 and Teo et al., 2003). They argue that institutional pressures emanating from the environment and transmitted through operational channels can strongly affect firm predisposition toward innovation adoption. Rogers et al. (2007) further contend that “arguments from institutional theory can contribute to a better understanding of the social context of OM [operations management] and supply chain management strategies” (p. 569). Also, Zhu et al. (2006) and Teo et al. (2003) suggest that Internet-enabled supply chain innovations are driven more by institutional rationale than technical reasoning. Yet, the findings of previous studies on how institutional factors affect a firm's adoption of an innovation have been mixed. For example, while some studies find the significant influences of perceived coercive pressures (e.g., Khalifa and Davison, 2006 and Teo et al., 2003), others show that they are insignificant (e.g., Liang et al., 2007 and Son and Benbasat, 2007). Thus, scholars are calling for more research to investigate the potential moderators in the process of a firm's experiencing, interpreting, and managing institutional pressures (Heugens and Lander, 2009). Exploring the moderating effect of organizational culture may help resolve the inconsistency in previous studies (Hewett et al., 2002). On the one hand, organizational culture is found to be a key factor influencing supply chain management practices and innovative information systems adoption (e.g., Khazanchi et al., 2007, Lant and Mezias, 1992, Leidner and Kayworth, 2006, Leisen et al., 2002, McAfee et al., 2002, McDermott and Stock, 1999, Mello and Stank, 2005, Mentzer et al., 2001, Stock et al., 2007 and Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). For example, Leidner and Kayworth (2006) argue that a firm is more likely to adopt an information system if the values embedded in the system fit its organizational culture. On the other hand, a firm exerts discretion by following its own rules and values rather than passively submitting to conventions prevailing in its organizational field (Greening and Gray, 1994). The organizational field refers to “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, p. 148). Thus, institutional pressures and organizational culture may work together and interact with each other to affect innovation adoption. For instance, firms may react differently to the same levels of perceived institutional pressures to adopt eSCM due to the differences in their organizational cultures. However, to date, no research has empirically investigated the effects of institutional factors on eSCM adoption and the interaction effect of institutional pressures and organizational culture. Such a void leaves a significant gap between theoretical and empirical research. In the current research, we intend to address this shortfall by empirically assessing the confluence of institutional pressures and organizational culture on a firm's intention to adopt eSCM with data collected from China-based firms. In essence, it does not do a firm any good if it is the only organization adopting eSCM. The success of eSCM relies on the adoption by the focal firm's supply chain partners and the diffusion of such systems in the industry. Moreover, to seek legitimacy, the managers may refer to the organizational field for guidance when deciding whether to adopt eSCM (Teo et al., 2003). Meanwhile, given that organizational culture is a relatively stable element of a firm, it affects how the firm assimilates and values information acquired from the field and subsequently affects the firm's responses to the expectations and requirements imposed by the field (Berthon et al., 2001, Deshpandé et al., 1993 and Leisen et al., 2002). Therefore, we propose that, while both institutional and cultural factors may affect a firm's predisposition toward eSCM adoption, the direct effect comes from institutional pressures and organizational culture moderates the underlying process of such effects.

The current research enriches supply chain integration research by examining the institutional factors’ effects on firms’ Internet-enabled systems adoption intention. Given that the adoption of Internet-enabled systems is a prevalent supply chain integration tactic (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001 and Rai et al., 2006), the current research reveals that institutional theory is a promising paradigm for supply chain research. It contributes to a better understanding of firms’ choices around adoption of inter-organizational innovations in conditions of uncertainty. Indeed, the application of institutional theory in supply chain management is rather limited, whereas the literature in strategy and organizational behavior has examined institutional pressures for some time. John et al. (2001) urge researchers to examine supply chain management issues from the lens of institutional theory. The present study is in response, in part, to their call. From the perspective of institutional theory, the present research extends our current understanding of the influence of external constituents on supply chain innovation adoption. The findings suggest that firms are not only economically rational, but also socially rational entities. They may submit to institutional pressures in the field to maintain their social legitimacy, in addition to seeking economic efficiency. Our findings lend support to the interaction effects of institutional pressures and organizational culture on innovation adoption intention. In the extant operations management literature, a few studies provide insight into how organizational culture may affect innovation adoption (e.g., Khazanchi et al., 2007, Stock et al., 2007, Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992 and McDermott and Stock, 1999). Complementing these studies, the present research suggests that the immediate motivation for innovation adoption comes from institutional pressures. Also, organizational culture, as a stable element of the organization, moderates the effects of institutional pressures. As such, this study sheds new light on the role of organizational culture in affecting a firm's adoption of innovations that integrate partners in the supply chain. More importantly, we found different effects of organizational culture on the relationships between different dimensions of institutional pressures and inter-organizational innovation adoption intention. While the current study provides some preliminary understanding, it opens a new avenue for research exploring how the effects of organizational culture may differ in different innovation contexts and how it may interact with factors at other levels. Furthermore, the findings of the present study may offer practitioners guidelines for promoting the diffusion of eSCM. Specifically, firms that value control are going to react actively to normative and coercive pressures. Yet, they will react poorly to mimetic pressures. Thus, when persuading a firm with such an organizational culture to adopt eSCM, the practitioners should emphasize normative and coercive pressures. In contrast, firms that value flexibility are less affected by coercive pressures. Therefore, practitioners should avoid taking coercive measures when trying to get this type of firms to adopt eSCM. It is important to evaluate the study's results and contributions in light of its limitations. Our study has the following limitations that can be addressed by future research. First, the study collected data at one point in time. A longitudinal study would enrich our understanding by offering information on the causal relationships between independent and dependent variables. It could allow researchers to investigate how organizational culture affects the implementation process of eSCM and how the assimilation of Internet-enabled systems shapes organizational culture. In addition, a longitudinal design would help to reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) that undermines the validity of studies with data from a single source at a single point in time. Second, the current research focuses on a firm's eSCM adoption intention rather than actual adoption. To ensure that the measures of intention can accurately predict actual adoption, we have conducted strict operationalization of item development to improve the validity and compatibility of the indicators. A stated adoption intention has been used as a proxy for the decision to adopt an innovation and it overcomes the post-diction criticism (e.g., Plouffe et al., 2001 and Teo et al., 2003). But the indicators of adoption intention may not represent a nomological net for the actual adoption. It may be more interesting to examine actual adoption for a model framed in the institutional theory. Future research should try to devise more comprehensive scales for firm adoption of innovative supply chain operational practices, and examine the implementation of the innovation. Third, we collected data with a single informant from each firm. Most firms, especially medium and large ones, involve groups of executives who make decisions on strategic issues such as innovation adoption. Though the majority of our informants held the titles of senior VP and above, they were not all CEOs; thus, their individual perceptions of the firm's eSCM adoption intention might not accurately represent the opinion of the management teams. Therefore, we suggest that future research should collect data from multiple informants in the top management teams. Finally, the demographic of our research sample may limit the generalizability of our findings. In order to avoid noise caused by industry differences, we purposely chose to study firms in manufacturing and service industries. To avoid interference caused by personal background differences, we chose informants who had obtained similar training from the same institution. Although these choices may help enhance the internal validity of the current study, they limit the present work's external validity. Thus, the research findings should be applied to other contexts with caution. We acknowledge that generalizability troubles all survey-based research because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a sample that could claim to be truly representative of the whole population. Still, future research should be conducted over a longer period of time with samples from more industries, countries, and informants with more diverse backgrounds.